On Sunday, the Whampoa Military Academy, founded by the Republic of China in 1924, celebrated its 100th anniversary. Taiwan and China held centennial celebrations, each laying claim to the institution’s lineage.
Several retired Taiwanese military officials accepted the Chinese Central Military Commission’s invitation to participate in commemorative activities in Guangdong, China, a decision that sparked objections and heated debate in Taiwan. Those officials are walking a fine line; any misstep could see them wading into the dangerous waters of treason by collaborating with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), far beyond mere cognitive warfare and “united front” tactics.
For those who hold the academy in high esteem, invoking the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例) and National Security regulations, imposing constraints on these veterans is not only disrespectful, but also dismissive of their service. After all, they say, these veterans are no ordinary people; they attended military academies from childhood, trained to become professional soldiers and rose to the rank of general.
Then again, following pension reforms, they ended up with more favorable pensions than civil servants. It is no exaggeration to say that they live well off of taxpayers’ hard-earned money. The state gives them this preferential treatment for defending the country and their loyalty. Even after returning to civilian life, it is only right that they uphold a high sense of duty and integrity, and identify with the country.
Based on these minimal standards, former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) serves as a relevant point of comparison. Born in China, he became a military strongman in Taiwan. He represented a generational shift, and no Whampoa graduate can claim to match his standards, sense of identity and significance.
Although he visited China multiple times and attended events commemorating war, he never once wavered in his beliefs. Hau was a staunch anti-communist, rejecting the legitimacy of the CCP and their self-serving historical narratives.
When visiting the Museum of the War of Chinese People’s Resistance against Japanese Aggression in 2014, he refused the company of Chinese officials. Upon reading the museum’s introduction stating that “the CCP united and guided all ethnic groups across China,” he said that it was Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) who led the eight-year war against the Japanese. On multiple occasions, he corrected biased statements made by the museum guide, demanding they produce the “Declaration of Joint KMT-CCP Cooperation” to set the record straight.
Hau remained loyal to the Republic of China (ROC). Although he advocated peaceful “reunification,” he remained committed to the principle of “constitutional one China,” rooted in Sun Yat-sen’s (孫逸仙) Three Principles of the People (三民主義). Hau categorically rejected surrender, annexation and obliteration.
In 2017, Hau attended a symposium in Nanjing with then-Mainland Affairs Council minister Katharine Chang (張小月) and Veterans Affairs Council Deputy Minister Lee Wen-chung (李文忠).
According to Lee, Hau made three promises in confidence: to never enter CCP state bureaus, to never accept the hospitality of CCP officials and to never engage with media criticizing the ROC. He kept his word until the very end.
Hau visited China during the administration of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), of the KMT, and a second time during the administration of former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), of the Democratic Progressive Party. Despite serving under two different ruling parties, Hau remained steadfast in his views, defending the head of the Whampoa Military Academy as well as his own vision for the ROC.
Whampoa graduates today should emulate Hau. His implementation of three principles — no contact, no negotiation and no compromise — was a clear boundary against treason and collaboration with the CCP.
How can the Whampoa officials who chose to forsake these fundamental principles and become instruments of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army face their friends and fellow soldiers at home? Taiwan should not welcome them back.
Tzou Jiing-wen is editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper).
Translated by Gabrielle Killick
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS